See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372447777

Geological Strength Index Relationships with the Q-System and Q-Slope

Article in Sustainability · July 2023

DOI: 10.3390/su151411233

CITATIONS READS

0 97

5 authors, including:

Samad Narimani Seyed Morteza Davarpanah

Sahand University of Technology Budapest University of Technology and Economics
16 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ákos Török
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
223 PUBLICATIONS 3,094 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geotechnical Risk Management View project

Metamorphic basement of the Tisia Megaunit View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Balazs Vasarhelyi on 19 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 sustainability
Article
Geological Strength Index Relationships with the Q-System
and Q-Slope
Samad Narimani 1 , Seyed Morteza Davarpanah 1 , Neil Bar 2 , Ákos Török 1
Citation: Narimani, S.; Davarpanah,
S.M.; Bar, N.; Török, Á.; Vásárhelyi, B.
Geological Strength Index
Relationships with the Q-System and
Q-Slope. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151411233
Academic Editors: Hong-Wei Yang,
Shuren Wang and Chen Cao
Received: 16 May 2023
Revised: 13 July 2023
Accepted: 17 July 2023
Published: 19 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411233
and Balázs Vásárhelyi 1, *
1 Department Engineering, Geology & Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of
Technology and Economics, 1111 Budapest, Hungary
2 Gecko Geotechnics LLC, Kingstown 1471, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Correspondence: vasarhelyi.balazs@emk.bme.hu
Abstract: The Q-system and Q-slope are empirical methods developed for classifying and assessing
rock masses for tunneling, underground mining, and rock slope engineering. Both methods have
been used extensively to guide appropriate ground support design for underground excavations and
stable angles for rock slopes. Using datasets obtained from igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic
rock slopes from various regions worldwide, this research investigates different relationships between
the geological strength index (GSI) and the Q-system and Q-slope. It also presents relationships
between chart-derived GSI with GSI estimations from RMR89 and Q’ during drill core logging or
traverse mapping. Statistical analysis was used to assess the reliability of the suggested correlations
to determine the validity of the produced equations. The research demonstrated that the proposed
equations provide appropriate values for the root mean squared error value (RMSE), the mean abso-
lute percentage error (MAPE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and the coefficient of determination
(R-squared). These relationships provide appropriate regression coefficients, and it was identified that
correlations were stronger when considering metamorphic rocks rather than other rocks. Moreover,
considering all rock types together, achieved correlations are remarkable.
Keywords: rock mass classification; Q-system; Q-slope; geological strength index (GSI)
1. Introduction
Rock masses can be described as a complex combination of intact rock material sep-
arated by geological discontinuities, including joints, bedding planes, veins, shears, and
faults. It is practically impossible to identify and characterize every single intact block
and discontinuity in a rock mass with respect to the engineering scale of projects (e.g., in
tunnels, slopes, and mines).
Rock mass classification systems are a process of grouping or classifying a rock mass
based on defined relationships [1] and assigning it a unique description (and number)
based on similar geomechanical properties or characteristics so that its behavior may be
predicted. Rock mass classifications and design charts are particularly useful for providing:
• Assessment of ground conditions by converting engineering geological descriptions
to “numbers” which can be used for engineering purposes;
• Fast prediction of underground excavation and slope performance;
• Guidance on support requirements and stable slope geometry.
The boundaries of the structural zones are typically defined by a significant structural
element, such as a fault or a change in the type of rock. Within the same rock type, there
may be instances where significant variations in discontinuity spacing or features call for
the partitioning of the rock mass into a number of tiny structural sections.
Empirical methods, including rock mass classifications, are most effective when the
geometry, geology, hydrogeology, and geomechanical characteristics of the engineering
problem (underground excavations, slopes, etc.) under investigation are similar to the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 2 of 16

known performance of precedent engineering problems [2]. An excavation will be usable

for a certain amount of time without support; after that, major caving and failure may
happen [3]. The only basis for empirical design is experience or observation; it is not based
on any theory or method of science. Its use in engineering design focuses on comparing the
outcomes of prior trials to project future behavior based on the most crucial components of
the design.
The design process using rock mass classification (Q-slope for rock slopes) and calcu-
lation of the rock mass behavior (using the geological strength index and the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion) is shown in Figure 1 [4]. As shown, to design the slope’s angle, rock
mass classification must be provided by using the Q-slope method, which needs field
investigations, and describing block size, roughness, and project factors. In terms of rock
mass characterization, the well-known method is the geological strength index introduced
by Hoek–Brown. The necessary parameters to analyze the stability of slope in this method
are friction, cohesion and uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock.

Figure 1. Rock mass characterization vs. Classification for rock slopes [4].

In the engineering design of rock slopes, it is assumed that all four input parameters
(GSI, m, s, and σci ) may be represented by normal distributions. The standard deviations
given to these four distributions are based on geotechnical program experience for sig-
nificant civil and mining projects where sufficient funding is available for high-quality
studies [5].
Rock mass behavior is mainly characterized by strength and deformation modulus of
rock mass. In order to provide a good estimation of rock mass behavior, geological strength
index plays an important role. Providing accurate values, the error in designing rock
slope stability would be minimized and lead to realistic safety factor, as discussed by Ván
and Vásárhelyi [6]. They analyzed the sensitivity of GSI-based equations and discovered
that relationships are extremely reliant on the input parameters and that changing one
parameter by 5% could significantly impact the outcomes. The well-known practical GSI
chart provided by Hoek–Brown and non-linear failure criteria can be used for further
design as shown in Figure 2.
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, x2023, 15, 11233
FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17 3 of 16

Figure 2. Figure
Estimation of constants
2. Estimation mb/mi, s, a,mdeformation
of constants modulus E, and the Poisson’s ratio (ν) for
b /mi , s, a, deformation modulus E, and the Poisson’s ratio (ν)
the generalized Hoek–Brown failure criterion based upon rock mass structure and discontinuity
for the generalized Hoek–Brown failure criterion based upon rock mass structure and discontinuity
surface conditions used for the design stage [4].
surface conditions used for the design stage [4].

Furthermore, several researchers

Furthermore, established,
several researchers improved,
established, and updated
improved, several rock
and updated several rock
mass rating methods for tunnel support design. These classification systems
mass rating methods for tunnel support design. These classification systems also have ap- also have
plications in diverse engineering
applications projects including
in diverse engineering projectsrock slopesrock
including [7–12].
slopes [7–12].
Santos etSantos
al. [13]
et showed using machine
al. [13] showed learninglearning
using machine techniques that it isthat
techniques possible to
it is possible to
achieve an accurate
achieve RMR classification
an accurate systemsystem
RMR classification usingusing
only only
factors that that
factors are are
directly con-
directly connected
nected totorock
rockmass
massquality
qualityrather
ratherthan
thanall
allRMR
RMRvariables.
variables.

2. Rock Mass Classification

2. Rock System System
Mass Classification
The mostThe most commonly
commonly used rock mass usedclassifications
rock mass classifications
include rock mass include
rating rock mass
(RMR) 89 rating
[1], rock(RMR)
mass quality
89 [1], rock mass
(Q-system) quality
[14] (Q-system)
and geological [14] and
strength geological
index strength
(GSI) [15]. index
Since (GSI)
its [15].
relativelySince
recentits introduction,
relatively recentthe introduction,
Q-slope method the for
Q-slope method
rock slope for rock slope
engineering engineering
[16] has also [16]
has also become commonly used for slope stability appraisals.
become commonly used for slope stability appraisals. With the use of Q-slope, engineer- With the use of Q-slope,
engineering
ing geologists and rock geologists
engineers and canrock engineers
evaluate can evaluate
the stability of rockthe stability
slopes that ofhaverock slopes that
been
excavated have been
in the excavated
field in thechange
and possibly field andthepossibly change
slope angles whenthe the
slope angles when
condition of the the
rock condition
of the rock
mass becomes clearmass
duringbecomes clear during
construction. construction.
The correlation The correlation
between between
the geological the geological
strength
strength
index (GSI) and the index
rock(GSI)
massand thewas
rate rockalso
mass rate was
recently also recently
analyzed by Somodianalyzed
et al.by[17].
Somodi et al. [17].
RMR
RMR89 and Q are and Q are empirical methods that directly guide
89 empirical methods that directly guide underground excavation sup- underground excavation
port requirements. Similarly, Q-slope provides direct guidance for long-term stable slope stable
support requirements. Similarly, Q-slope provides direct guidance for long-term
slope angles.
angles. These methods These
havemethods
been used have
bybeen usedassessing
visually by visually assessing
tunnel tunnelfaces,
and slope and slope
as faces,
as well as for the characterization of drill core. The GSI system
well as for the characterization of drill core. The GSI system on the other hand, is an input on the other hand, is an
parameter input parameter
to the Hoek–Brown to the failure
Hoek–Brown
criterion failure
[18]. criterion [18].
Hoek and Brown [19] expanded their intact rockintact
Hoek and Brown [19] expanded their failurerock failurefor
criterion criterion for applicability
applicability to
homogeneous and isotropic rock masses under the assumption that the same type of same
to homogeneous and isotropic rock masses under the assumption that the non- type of
non-linear
linear envelopes envelopes
continued to continued
be valid. Rock to bemass
valid. RockRMR
rating, mass76rating, RMR76 , and
, and modified rockmodified
mass rock
mass quality, Q’, were initially utilized to downgrade intact
quality, Q’, were initially utilized to downgrade intact rock to rock mass strength in the rock to rock mass strength in
the Hoek–Brown
Hoek–Brown failure criterion [20]. failure criterion [20].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 4 of 16

2.1. Geological Strength Index (GSI)

Unless a rock mass failure criterion could be connected to a geological description that
engineering geologists could make quickly, it would be of no practical use. The geological
strength index (GSI) is a system for classifying rocks that was created in the field of rock
engineering to address the requirement for accurate estimation of the attributes of rocks for
the design of engineering projects [15]. The foundation of the GSI system is an in-depth
engineering geology description of the rock mass encountered in engineering projects.
Structure and the condition of discontinuities in the rock mass, which can be determined
through visual inspection of the rock mass exposed in outcrops, are two essential criteria
that determine the value of the GSI [21]. The basic GSI chart’s use entails some subjectivity
because there are not any quantifiable or more representative metrics, linked interval limits,
or ratings for describing the rock structure and surface conditions of the discontinuities.
In order to make the method easier to use, particularly for new engineers, numerous
publications [18,22,23] presented quantitative GSI charts to quantify the estimation of GSI.
In circumstances when there are only one or two sets of discontinuities, the GSI should not
be utilized. Instead, it should only be employed when the rock mass is intact or heavily
joined. When working with blocky rock masses that have minimum anisotropy, extreme
caution should be used. However, it is occasionally reasonable to assign the GSI to the
entire rock mass and include the single discontinuity as a layer element in the numerical
model for a rock mass that has a single well-defined discontinuity [20]. According to the
definition of GSI and subsequent application, it is independent of the water inflow and
the in situ stress state. As mentioned, GSI has limits, as do any categorization systems,
including the differences in the results of individuals. Others have suggested that the
generic GSI may not appropriately reflect the size of the rock mass problem because its
parameters, particularly RQD and JCond , are scale-dependent [24,25].
The two main geological elements behind GSI were the surface conditions of disconti-
nuities and their shear strength, as well as the rock mass structure, which represented the
degree of fracture [26]. GSI subsequently replaced RMR in the Hoek–Brown failure crite-
rion. To encourage early adoption, Hoek et al. [15,27] provided the following relationships
for estimating GSI, termed GSIcalc in this paper from RMR and Q’:

GSIcalc = RMR89 − 5 (1)

for RMR89 ≥ 23
GSIcalc = 9lnQ’ + 44 (2)
for RMR89 < 23
GSI was developed to assess tunnel and slope faces using charts (Figure 3) and cannot
be estimated directly from the characterization of the drill core. Equations (1) and (2) also
enable the estimation of GSIcalc from the drill core.
Hoek et al. [19] suggested quantifying the GSI chart as a function of RQD and the joint
condition parameters presented by either [1]: JCond89 from RMR89 or Barton et al. [14];
Jr and Ja from Q and Q-slope, on the premise that professionals with less expertise and
who are “less at ease with the qualitative descriptions” may utilize this new GSI chart. The
suggested equations included [18]:

GSI2013 = 1.5JCond89 + RQD/2 (3)

52Jr /Ja
GSI2013 =   + RQD/2 (4)
1 + JJar

Vásárhelyi et al. [28] and Somodi et al. [29] discovered that visual observation by
an expert engineering geologist is the best technique to estimate GSI, compared to the
computational and estimation methods examined. Moreover, Deák et al. [30] and Somodi
et al. [31] analyzed the relationship between the parameters of the Q-system and the GSI
 2023, 15,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55of
of 17
16

value and the equations are suggested based on the empirical results of different different rock
engineering projects in Hungary and Australia.
Bertuzzi et al. [32] observed a decent connection between the GSI values derived by
the chart (GSI chart)) and
(GSIchart and thethe GSI
GSI quantified
quantified (GSI2013 2013) )using
usingthe
the Hoek
Hoek etet al. [18] technique
(Figure 3). Santa et al. al. [33] compared the differences between the latestedition
[33] compared the differences between the latest editionofofGSI
GSI2013
2013
and the
the prior
prior version
version(GSI (GSI9898 ) in an anisotropic media. They discovered
) in an anisotropic media. They discovered that the 2013 that the 2013
ver-
version
sion [18][18] allocated
allocated lower
lower GSIGSI ratings
ratings toto rockmasses
rock masseswith withlesser
lesserquality
qualityand
and higher
higher values
to rock masses with greater quality. quality. Winn et al. [34] revealed that the three alternative alternative
techniques
techniques proposed
proposedby by[22,23]
[22,23]forforaasedimentary
sedimentaryrock rockmass
mass inin
a Singapore
a Singapore dive, a variety
dive, of
a variety
outcomes comparable to the field-assessed qualitative GSI, showing their
of outcomes comparable to the field-assessed qualitative GSI, showing their good perfor- good performance.
However, Winn etWinn
mance. However, al. [34] established
et al. a new GSI
[34] established a newrelationship by replacing
GSI relationship RQD/2
by replacing with
RQD/2
RQD/3 in the calculation of
with RQD/3 in the calculation of2013 GSI , which provided substantially higher GSI
GSI2013, which provided substantially higher GSI values values that
did not correspond to the qualitative field
that did not correspond to the qualitative field values. values.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. (a) GSI chart for jointed rocks [35]. (b) Quantification of GSI through joint conditions and
Figure 3. (a) GSI chart for jointed rocks [35]. (b) Quantification of GSI through joint conditions and
RQD [18].
RQD [18].
Yang and
Yang and Elmo
Elmo [36]
[36] argue
argue against
against the
the quantification
quantification paradigm
paradigm for
for GSI
GSI determination
determination
without taking into account the constraints of the idea that GSI quantification approaches
without taking into account the constraints of the idea that GSI quantification approaches
may convert
may convert subjectivity
subjectivity into
into objectivity
objectivity since
since the
the parameters
parameters under
under consideration
consideration are not
are not
quantitative measurements.
quantitative measurements.

2.2. The Q-Slope Method

Barton and Bar [37] are credited with developing the Q-slope, an empirical engineer-
ing method for assessing the stability of rock slopes that allows for immediate access to
stability with few presumptions. It is descended from the Q-system, which has been used
globally for over 40 years to characterize rock exposures, drill core, and tunnels that are
under construction [14,38]. Q-slope allows engineering geologists and rock engineers to
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 6 of 16

analyze the stability of excavated rock slopes in the field and make prospective slope angle
adjustments as rock mass conditions become obvious during construction [37,39]. The
Qslope used Q system components to slope stability assessments are calculated using the
expression [16]:  
RQD J J
Qslope = × r × wice (5)
Jn Ja O SRFslope
RQD, Jn , Jr , and Ja are the same four parameters used in Q-system. On the other
hand, the frictional resistance pair Jr and Ja as necessary, each side of a wedge that may be
unstable will receive this treatment. If suitable, simple orientation variables such as (Jr /Ja )O
give an estimate of the reduction in overall whole-wedge frictional resistance. The term Jw ,
which has now been modified to Jwice , refers to a broader range of environmental conditions
ideal for rock slopes exposed to the elements for a long time. Extremes of erosive rains and
ice wedging, which can occur periodically at opposing extremities of the rock-type and
regional spectrum, are examples of these situations. Slope-relevant SRF classifications are
also available in slope surface conditions, stress–strength ratios and major discontinuities
such as faults, weakness zones or joint swarms [37].
Q’ and Q-slope’ are estimated using Equations (6) and (7), which merely remove
the water, environment, stress, and strength reduction factors from the full Q-system and
Q-slope equations:    
RQD J
Q0 = × r (6)
Jn Ja
     
0 RQD Jr J
Q-slope = × × r (7)
Jn Ja A Ja B where applicable
where RQD = rock quality designation (%).
• Jn = joint set number.
• Jr = joint roughness number.
• Ja = joint alteration number.
Q-system and Q-slope ratings for RQD, Jn , Jr , and Ja are described by Barton et al. [14]
and Bar and Barton [16]. These parameters are commensurate with the primary factors in
GSI: rock mass structure and discontinuity surface conditions.
The main distinction between Q and Q-slope is that Q uses Jr /Ja from the collection
of discontinuities with the least favorable discontinuities. In contrast, Jr /Ja for both sides
(A and B) of the wedge can be considered necessary when wedges are encountered while
utilizing Q-slope. In order to predict various parameters from others in material sciences
and engineering properties of various rock types from their petrographic characteristics in
engineering geology and rock mechanics, several researchers have attempted to construct
various soft computing models [40–43]. Recent research has examined the relationships
between the Q-system, Q-slope, and GSI as well as for other rocks by employing statistical
analyses and various soft computing techniques such as root mean squared error value
(RMSE), the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), and
coefficient of determination (R-squared).

3. Study Area
The current study reviews over 192 case records collected from across 11 countries on
five continents to investigate the relationship between the GSI obtained using the popular
chart methods in more depth. (GSIchart ) and its correlation with Q’ and Q-slope’.
The case records were obtained from rock slope faces that were assessed during the
Q-slope method development [16] from a range of mining commodities, including gold,
copper, iron ore, coal, and diamonds, and civil engineering applications, including roads,
highways, and quarries. GSI was estimated for these case studies using GSI chart for
jointed rocks (GSIchart ). Figure 4 graphically illustrates the results from a selection of case
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 7 of 16

studies. The case records include over 20 different rock types in vastly different engineering
geological, environmental, and climatic settings:
• Igneous rocks include andesite, basalt, diorite, granite, kimberlite, monzodiorite,
rhyolite,
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW and tuff. 7 of 17
• Sedimentary rocks include chert, greywacke, limestone, mudstone, siltstone, sand-
stone, and banded iron formation.
• 3. Study
Metamorphic
Area rocks include marble, metasandstone, phyllite, quartzite, schist, and shale.
Figure 5 presents
The current studyareviews
selection of 192
over photographs
case records ofcollected
rock slopes
fromhosted within
across 11 vastly
countries
different rock masses and their respective GSI, Q-slope, and Q-slope’
on five continents to investigate the relationship between the GSI obtained using the pop- ratings for context:
• ular chart
Case methods
records A and in more
B aredepth.
both (GSI chart) and
granites. A isitsmassive
correlation with
whilst B Q’ and Q-slope’.
is blocky.
• Therecords
Case case records
C, D,were and E obtained from rock which
are all siltstones, slope faces that were
are blocky, assessed
seamy, andduring the
very blocky,
Q-slope method Joint
respectively. development [16] from
surface quality a rangefrom
reduces of mining commodities,
very good to good in including
C and Egold,
to fair
copper,
in F. iron ore, coal, and diamonds, and civil engineering applications, including roads,
• highways, and Fquarries.
Case record is a sheared GSI was estimated
mudstone for theseclaystones
comprising case studies
andusing GSI chart
siltstones with for
slick-
jointed rocks (GSI chart). Figure 4 graphically illustrates the results from a selection of case
ensided, graphitic infilling along bedding planes and bedding shears.
• studies.
Case The case Brecords
records and Cinclude
have the over
same20 different
GSI, butrock vastlytypes in vastly
different different
Q-slope engineer-
values, due to
ing geological, environmental, and climatic settings:
the orientation of the discontinuities.
• • CaseIgneous
recordsrocks
D andinclude andesite,
E have basalt,
different GSIdiorite, granite,values,
and Q-slope’ kimberlite,
but monzodiorite, rhy-
very similar Q-slope
olite, and
values. Bothtuff.
are stable slopes with bench face angles of approximately 65◦ .
• Sedimentary rocks include chert, greywacke, limestone, mudstone, siltstone, sand-
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS23 software to outline the relations between
stone, and banded iron formation.
parameters and describe the frequency distribution of GSI values [44]. Three rock types
• Metamorphic rocks include marble, metasandstone, phyllite, quartzite, schist, and
were picked and tested independently, and reliability analyses were also made. Figure 6
shale.
indicates the 5frequency
Figure presents adistribution of GSI values,
selection of photographs andslopes
of rock Table hosted
1 indicates
withinthe statistical
vastly dif-
analysis of the data for all the rocks and each type of rocks separately.
ferent rock masses and their respective GSI, Q-slope, and Q-slope’ ratings for context: According to Table 1,
GSI
• values
Case range
recordsbetween
A and B 20 areand
both90 for all A
granites. the rock types,
is massive indicating
whilst that our datasets
B is blocky.
include
• very good through very poor rock mass.
Case records C, D, and E are all siltstones, which are blocky, seamy, and very blocky,
respectively. Joint surface quality reduces from very good to good in C and E to fair
Table 1. Statistical analysis of measured GSI values.
in F.
• Case record FNumber
is a sheared mudstone comprising
of Estimates Median claystones and siltstonesMaximum
Minimum with slick-
ensided, graphitic infilling along bedding planes and bedding shears.
• Igneous
Case records B and C have 26 the same GSI, but 65 vastly different 27Q-slope values,89 due to
Sedimentary 139 55 20 85
the orientation of the discontinuities.
Metamorphic 27 60 30 90
• Case records D and E192
Total have different GSI and 55 Q-slope’ values, 20 but very similar 90 Q-
slope values. Both are stable slopes with bench face angles of approximately 65°.

Figure
Figure 4. 4. Case
Case records:geographic
records: geographiclocation
locationand
andindustry
industry and
and commodity.
commodity. (The
(The numbers
numbersindicate
indicate the
the locations of sampling)
locations of sampling).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 8 of 16
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 17

Figure 5. Selection of case studies comparing GSI, Q-slope, and Q-slope’.
Figure 5. Selection of case studies comparing GSI, Q-slope, and Q-slope’.
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS23 software to outline the relations between
parameters and describe the frequency distribution of GSI values [44]. Three rock types
were picked and tested independently, and reliability analyses were also made. Figure 6
indicates the frequency distribution of GSI values, and Table 1 indicates the statistical anal-
ysis of the data for all the rocks and each type of rocks separately. According to Table 1,
GSI values range between 20 and 90 for all the rock types, indicating that our datasets
include very good through very poor rock mass.

Table 1. Statistical analysis of measured GSI values.

Number of Estimates Median Minimum Maximum

Igneous 26 65 27 89
Sedimentary 139 55 20 85
Metamorphic 27 60 30 90
Total 192 55 20 90

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 6. Histogram of measured GSI for (a) igneous rocks, (b) sedimentary rocks, (c) metamorphic
6. Histogram
Figure rocks, and (d) all of
themeasured
rock types. GSI for (a) igneous rocks, (b) sedimentary rocks, (c) metamorphic
rocks, and (d) all the rock types.
4. Derived Relationships between the Different Methods
4.1. Correlation between GSI and Q’
The Q’ values were calculated by using Equation (6) and correlated to the GSIchart.
These results are summarized in Figure 7. Figure 7a shows the correlation for three types
of rocks (igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic) separately, and Figure 7b shows the
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 9 of 16

4. Derived Relationships between the Different Methods

4.1. Correlation between GSI and Q’
The Q’ values were calculated by using Equation (6) and correlated to the GSIchart .
These results are summarized in Figure 7. Figure 7a shows the correlation for three types
of rocks (igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic) separately, and Figure 7b shows the
correlation for all rocks together. The more reliable correlation relates to metamorphic rocks
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW (R2 = 79%). Also, for all cases, the best fitting is in logarithmic. These relationships
10 of 17 have
similarities with Equation (2).

(a)

(b)
Figure Figure
7. Relationships between
7. Relationships GSIchartGSI
between and Q’: (a) separated for igneous, sedimentary, metamor-
chart and Q’: (a) separated for igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic
phic rocks, (b) for all rocks.
rocks, (b) for all rocks.

4.2. Correlation
4.2. Correlation betweenbetween
GSI andGSI and Q-Slope’
Q-Slope’
In addition,
In addition, using Equation
using Equation (7), the(7), the Q-slope’
Q-slope’ values values were calculated
were calculated and correlated
and correlated to to
the GSI
the GSIchart. Figure . Figure 8 summarizes these findings. Figure 8a shows the correlation
chart 8 summarizes these findings. Figure 8a shows the correlation for three for three
differentdifferent
types oftypes
rocksof(igneous,
rocks (igneous, sedimentary,
sedimentary, metamorphic),
metamorphic), while Figure
while Figure 8b shows
8b shows the the
correlation for all rocks combined. The more reliable correlation is with metamorphic
rocks (R2 = 63%). Also, in all cases, the best fitting is logarithmic. These relationships also
have similarities with Equation (2).
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 10 of 16

correlation for all rocks combined. The more reliable correlation is with metamorphic rocks
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW (R2 = 63%). Also, in all cases, the best fitting is logarithmic. These relationships also have
11 of 17
similarities with Equation (2).

(a)

(b)
Figure 8. Figure
Relationships between GSI
8. Relationships chart andGSI
between Q-slope’: (a) Q-slope’:
chart and separated (a)
for separated
igneous, sedimentary,
for igneous,met-
sedimentary,
amorphicmetamorphic
rocks, (b) for rocks,
all rocks.
(b) for all rocks.

4.3. Correlation
4.3. Correlation between
between GSI GSIGSI
chart and chart and GSI2013
2013

Furthermore,
Furthermore, EquationEquation
(3) was used(3) wasto used
produceto produce thevalues,
the GSI2013 GSI2013which
values,were
which
thenwere then
compared with GSI
compared with GSIchart. Figure . Figure 9 summarizes the findings. Figure 9a depicts
chart9 summarizes the findings. Figure 9a depicts the correlation the correlation
for threefor three different
different types of types
rocks of rocks (igneous,
(igneous, sedimentary,
sedimentary, metamorphic),
metamorphic), while9b
while Figure Figure 9b
depicts the correlation for all rocks. Metamorphic rocks have a
depicts the correlation for all rocks. Metamorphic rocks have a more reliable correlationmore reliable correlation
(R2In
(R2 = 88%). = addition,
88%). In addition,
the optimal the fitting
optimal fitting in
is linear is linear in all circumstances.
all circumstances.
 Sustainability
ainability 2023, 15, x FOR2023,
PEER 15,REVIEW
11233 12 of 17 11 of 16

(a)

(b)
Figure 9. Relationships between GSIchart
Figure 9. Relationships and GSI
between GSI2013 : (a) separated for igneous, sedimentary, meta-
chart and GSI2013 : (a) separated for igneous, sedimentary, meta-
morphic rocks, (b) for rocks,
morphic all rocks.
(b) for all rocks.

5. Key Findings
5. Key Findings
Several
Several different different relationships
relationships between GSI between
(GSIchartGSI
) and(GSI and) Q-slope’
Q’chart and Q’ and Q-slope’
have been have been
identified using over 200 new case records. The relationship between
identified using over 200 new case records. The relationship between the GSI value andthe GSI value and the
Q
the Q value is:value is:
GSI = A ln(Q) + B, (8)
GSI = A ln(Q) + B, (8)
where A and B are material constants, depending on the rock type [30].
where A and B are material constants, depending on the rock type [30].
• For Q’: A and B values range from 9.82 to 11.13 and from 35.31 to 38.74, respectively.
• For Q’: A and B values range from 9.82 to 11.13 and from 35.31 to 38.74, respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 12 of 16

• For Q-slope’: A and B values range from 6.23 to 8.39 and from 42.19 to 47.34, respec-
tively.
All derived relationships are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Empirical equations derived in this study.

Types of Correlation Equation R2

GSIchart & Q’
GSI = 11.10ln(Q’) + 38.74 0.79
for Metamorphic rocks
GSIchart & Q’
GSI = 11.13ln(Q’) + 35.31 0.69
for Sedimentary rocks
GSIchart & Q’
GSI = 9.82ln(Q’) + 36.28 0.71
for Igneous rocks
GSIchart & Q’
GSI = 10.58ln(Q’) + 36.02 0.66
for all rocks
GSIchart & Q-slope’
GSI = 7.98ln(Q-slope’) + 47.34 0.63
for Metamorphic rocks
GSIchart & Q-slope’
GSI = 8.39ln(Q-slope’) + 42.19 0.60
for Sedimentary rocks
GSIchart & Q-slope’
GSI = 6.23ln(Q-slope’) + 44.94 0.58
for Igneous rocks
GSIchart & Q-slope’
GSI = 8.13ln(Q-slope’) + 44.12 0.62
for all rocks
GSIchart & GSI2013
GSI2013 = 0.98(GSIchart ) − 0.51 0.88
for Metamorphic rocks
GSIchart & GSI2013
GSI2013 = 1.03(GSIchart ) + 1.19 0.74
for Sedimentary rocks
GSIchart & GSI2013
GSI2013 = 0.95(GSIchart ) + 8.41 0.71
for Igneous rocks
GSIchart & GSI2013
GSI2013 = 0.97(GSIchart ) + 4.29 0.75
for all rocks

6. Quantitative Relationships and Errors

Four common statistical metrics, including determination coefficient (R2 ), root mean
square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute percent error (MAPE),
were used to assess the statistical efficiency of the GSIchart prediction in the training and
testing sets [45]. Equations (9)–(11) specify the following performance measures:
s
2
∑ni=1 (pi − qi)
RMSE = (9)
n

1 n qi − pi
n ∑ i=1
MAPE = × 100 (10)
qi

∑ni=1 |pi − qi|

MAE = (11)
n
Here, pi and qi stand in for the ith predicted and expected results, respectively, and n
denotes the total number of experiments. Since significant errors are dealt with far more
successfully than smaller ones, RMSE is a widely used metric. When the RMSE approaches
0, it means that the prediction error was minimal. However, it does not always guarantee
top performance. Additionally, MAE was calculated and is incredibly helpful when data
are smooth and continuous [46].
Plotting the residuals vs. the fitted values of the dependent variable allows one to
assess the error of the proposed model. The residuals are the discrepancies between the
experimental outcomes and the values that the suggested model predicted. The values that
 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 13 of 16

experimental outcomes and the values that the suggested model predicted. The values
have
thatbeen
have fitted are those
been fitted that the
are those thatproposed model
the proposed anticipated.
model Figure
anticipated. 1010
Figure illustrates
illustratesthe
residuals’ balanced and symmetrical dispersion about the horizontal axis.
the residuals’ balanced and symmetrical dispersion about the horizontal axis.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure10.10.Distribution
Distribution of
of the
the residuals
residualsagainst
againstfitted values:
fitted (a) (a)
values: between GSIchart
between GSIand Q-slope’, (b)
Figure chart and Q-slope’,
GSIchart and Q’, (c) GSIchart and GSIcalc.
(b) GSIchart and Q’, (c) GSIchart and GSIcalc .

Additionally,the
Additionally, theresiduals’
residuals’outermost
outermost points
points resemble
resemble aa circular
circularin
inshape.
shape.The
Theresid-
residu-
uals’ independent nature and random distribution around the centerline
als’ independent nature and random distribution around the centerline are confirmed by are confirmed
bydistribution
this this distribution [47,48].
[47,48]. To make
To make sure
sure of of this,
this, thethe determinationcoefficient,
determination coefficient, R-squared,
R-squared, is
is computed. It turns out to be very nearly equivalent to zero. In other words, the
computed. It turns out to be very nearly equivalent to zero. In other words, the residuals residualsare
are not dependent on one another. The proposed model’s goodness of fit is therefore ex-
not dependent on one another. The proposed model’s goodness of fit is therefore excellent.
cellent.
The calculations: These new statistical indicators that provide quantitative connections
The calculations: These new statistical indicators that provide quantitative connec-
between GSIchart and Q’ and Q-slope’, as well as GSI2013 , are given in Table 3.
tions between GSIchart and Q’ and Q-slope’, as well as GSI2013, are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Statistical indicators for Q-slope’ vs. GSIchart , Q’ vs. GSIchart , and GSIcalc vs. GSIchart models.
Table 3. Statistical indicators for Q-slope’ vs. GSIchart, Q’ vs. GSIchart, and GSIcalc vs. GSIchart models.

Statistical Metrics
Statistical Metrics Q-Slope’ vs. GSI
Q-Slope’ vs.chart
GSIchart Q’Q’
vs.vs.
GSIGSIchart
chart GSIcalc
GSI vs.GSI
calcvs. GSI
chart
chart
Training
Training Testing
Testing Training
Training Testing
Testing Training
Training Testing
Testing
RMSE
RMSE 9.93 9.93 10.810.8 8.5
8.5 9.56
9.56 7.47
7.47 7.85
7.85
MAPE 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.11
MAE 7.87 8.5 6.69 7.8 5.95 5.9
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 14 of 16

7. Conclusions
The relationships between the geological strength index (GSI) and the Q-system and
Q-slope are explored in this paper. Quantitative correlation analyses have been carried
out systematically using study data from various igneous, metamorphic, and sedimen-
tary rocks.
Validated results show that the proposed simplified quantitative correlations accu-
rately reflect the observed relationship between the mentioned parameters.
The statistical measures employed to assess the effectiveness of the model were mean
absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and root means square error
(RMSE). These indicators have various relationships: the logarithmic equations provide
good forecasting results between GSIchart and Q’ and Q-slope’, while the linear equations
between GSIchart and GSI2013 fall in the “stronger prediction” category.
These correlations can be used to assess the surrounding rock mass of various rock
types in various places. While these and other connections are likely relevant elsewhere
in similar ground conditions, readers are strongly recommended to validate them at their
local site before using them. Thus, it is strongly encouraged that engineering geologists and
geotechnical engineers have to develop a site-specific correlations chart at various locations.

Author Contributions: S.N.: structure and writing, S.M.D.: calculation, N.B.: in situ measurements
and methodology, Á.T.: processing and reviewing, and B.V.: methodology and conceptualization. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The support provided by the Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary from the
National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the TKP2021-NVA funding
scheme (project no. TKP-6-6/PALY-2021) is acknowledged.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bieniawski, Z.T. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications: A Complete Manual for Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and Petroleum
Engineering; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
2. Duncan, J.M. State of the Art: Limit Equilibrium and Finite-Element Analysis of Slopes. J. Geotech. Eng. 1996, 122, 577–596.
[CrossRef]
3. Lauffer, H. Gebirgsklassifizierung für den Stollenbau. Geol. Bauwes. 1958, 24, 46–51.
4. Eberhardt, E. Geological Engineering Practice I—Rock Engineering, Lecture 5 [PowerPoint Slides]. 2017. Available online:
https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/courses/eosc433/lecture-material/L5-EmpiricalDesign.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2017).
5. Hoek, E. Reliability of Hoek-Brow estimates of Rock Mass properties and their impact design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abst. 1998, 35, 63–68. [CrossRef]
6. Ván, P.; Vásárhelyi, B. Sensitivity analysis of GSI based mechanical parameters of the rock mass. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2014,
58, 379–386. [CrossRef]
7. Romana, M.; Serón, J.B.; Montalar, E. SMR Geomechanics Classification: Application, Experience and Validation. In Proceedings
of the 10th ISRM Congress, Sandton, South Africa, 8–12 September 2003.
8. Romana, M. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski classification to slopes. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Role of Rock Mechanics, Zacatecas, Mexico, 2–4 September 1985; pp. 49–53.
9. Tomás, R.; Delgado, J.; Serón, J. Modification of slope mass rating (SMR) by continuous functions. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
2007, 44, 1062–1069. [CrossRef]
10. Tomas, R.; Cuenca, A.; Cano, M.; García-Barba, J. A graphical approach for slope mass rating (SMR). Eng. Geol. 2012, 124, 67–76.
[CrossRef]
11. Taheri, A.; Tani, K. A Modified rock mass classification system for preliminary design of rock slopes. In Proceedings of the 4th
Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Singapore, 8–10 November 2006.
12. Taheri, A. A rating system for preliminary design of rock slopes. In Proceedings of the 41st Japan Geotechnical Society Conference
(JGS), Kagoshima, Japan, 12–15 July 2006.
13. Santos, A.E.M.; Lana, M.S.; Pereira, T.M. Evaluation of machine learning methods for rock mass classification. Neural Comput.
Appl. 2022, 34, 4633–4642. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 15 of 16

14. Barton, N.R.; Lien, R.; Lunde, J. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech. 1974, 6,
189–239. [CrossRef]
15. Hoek, E. Strength of rock and rock masses. ISRM News J. 1994, 2, 4–16.
16. Bar, N.; Barton, N. The Q-slope Method for Rock Slope Engineering. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2017, 50, 3307–3322. [CrossRef]
17. Somodi, G.; Bar, N.; Kovács, L.; Arrieta, M.; Török, Á.; Vásárhelyi, B. Study of Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength
Index (GSI) Correlations in Granite, Siltstone, Sandstone and Quartzite Rock Masses. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3351. [CrossRef]
18. Hoek, E.; Carter, T.G.; Diederichs, M.S. Quantification of the geological strength index chart. In Proceedings of the 47th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium—ARMA 2013 (ARMA 13–672), San Francisco, CA, USA, 23–26 June 2013.
19. Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. Empirical Strength Criterion for Rock Masses. J. Geotech. Eng. 1980, 106, 1013–1035. [CrossRef]
20. Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion—A 1988 Update. In Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics
Symposium; University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1988; pp. 31–38.
21. Jianping, Z.; Jiayi, S. The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion—From Theory to Application; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
22. Sonmez, H.; Ulusay, R. Modifications to the Geological Strength Index (GSI) and their applicability to the stability of slopes. Int.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1999, 36, 743–760. [CrossRef]
23. Cai, M.; Kaiser, P.K.; Uno, H.; Tasaka, Y.; Minami, M. Estimation of Rock Mass Deformation Modulus and Strength of Jointed
Hard Rock Masses using the GSI system. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2004, 41, 3–19. [CrossRef]
24. Hudson, J.; Harrison, J. Engineering Rock Mechanics; Pergamon: Bergama, Turkey, 1997.
25. Mostyn, G.; Douglas, K. Strength of intact rock and rock masses. In Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium, Melbourne,
Australia, 19–24 November 2000.
26. Renani, H.R.; Cai, M. Forty-Year Review of the Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion for Jointed Rock Masses. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2022,
55, 439–461. [CrossRef]
27. Hoek, E.; Kaiser, P.K.; Bawden, W.F. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock; Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
28. Vásárhelyi, B.; Somodi, G.; Krupa, Á.; Kovács, L. Determining the Geological Strength Index (GSI) using different methods. In
Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium—EUROCK 2016, Nevsehir, Turkey, 29–31 August 2016; pp. 1049–1054.
29. Somodi, G.; Krupa, Á.; Kovács, L.; Vásárhelyi, B. Comparison of different calculation methods of Geological Strength Index (GSI)
in a specific underground construction site. Eng. Geol. 2018, 243, 50–58. [CrossRef]
30. Deák, F.; Kovács, L.; Vásárhelyi, B. Geotechnical rock mass documentation in the Bátaapáti radioactive waste repository. Cent.
Eur. Geol. 2014, 57, 197–211. [CrossRef]
31. Somodi, G.; Bar, N.; Vásárhelyi, B. Correlation between the rock mass quality (Q-system) method and Geological Strength Index
(GSI). In Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium of the Macedonian Association for Geotechnics, ISRM Specialized Conference,
Ohrid, North Macedonia, 23–25 June 2022; pp. 461–468.
32. Bertuzzi, R.; Douglas, K.; Mostyn, G. Comparison of quantified and chart GSI for four rock masses. Eng. Geol. 2016, 202, 24–35.
[CrossRef]
33. Santa, C.; Gonçalves, L.; Chaminé, H.I. A comparative study of GSI chart versions in a heterogeneous rock mass media (Marão
tunnel, North Portugal): A reliable index in geotechnical surveys and rock engineering design. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2019, 78,
5889–5903. [CrossRef]
34. Winn, K.; Ngai, L.; Wong, Y. Quantitative GSI determination of Singapore’s sedimentary rock mass by applying four different
approaches. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2019, 37, 2103–2119. [CrossRef]
35. Hoek, E.; Marinos, P. Predicting tunnel squeezing. Tunn. Tunn. Int. 2000, 32, 45–51.
36. Yang, B.; Elmo, D. Why Engineers Should Not Attempt to Quantify GSI. Geosciences 2022, 12, 417. [CrossRef]
37. Barton, N.; Bar, N. Introducing the Q-Slope Method and Its Intended Use within Civil and Mining Engineering Projects. In
Future Development of Rock Mechanics, Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Symposium Eurock 2015 and 64th Geomechanics Colloquium,
Salzburg, Austria, 7–10 October 2015; Schubert, W., Kluckner, A., Eds.; GEOAUSTRIA: Salzburg, Austria, 2015; pp. 157–162. ISBN
978-3-9503898-1-4.
38. Barton, N.R.; Grimstad, E. An Illustrated Guide to the Q-System Following 40 Years Use in Tunnelling; In-House Publishing: Oslo,
Norway, 2014.
39. Bar, N.; Barton, N. Q-Slope: An Empirical Rock Slope Engineering Approach in Australia. Austr. Geomech. 2018, 53, 73–86.
40. Moustafa, E.B.; Hammad, A.H.; Elsheikh, A.H. A new optimized artificial neural network model to predict thermal efficiency and
water yield of tubular solar still. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2022, 30, 101750. [CrossRef]
41. Abdolrasol, M.G.; Hussain, S.S.; Ustun, T.S.; Sarker, M.R.; Hannan, M.A.; Mohamed, R.; Ali, J.A.; Mekhilef, S.; Milad, A. Artificial
neural networks based optimization techniques: A review. Electronics 2021, 10, 2689. [CrossRef]
42. Cantisani, E.; Garzonio, C.A.; Ricci, M.; Vettori, S. Relationships between the petrographical, physical and mechanical properties
of some Italian sandstones. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2013, 60, 321–332. [CrossRef]
43. Cowie, S.; Walton, G. The effect of mineralogical parameters on the mechanical properties of granitic rocks. Eng. Geol. 2018, 240,
204–225. [CrossRef]
44. IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2015.
45. Agbulut, Ü.; Gürel, A.E.; Biçen, Y. Prediction of daily global solar radiation using different machine learning algorithms:
Evaluation and comparison. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110114. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11233 16 of 16

46. Shahin, M.A. Use of evolutionary computing for modelling some complex problems in geotechnical engineering. Geomech.
Geoengin. 2015, 10, 109–125. [CrossRef]
47. Khalaf, A.A.; Kopecskó, K. Modelling of Modulus of Elasticity of Low-Calcium-Based Geopolymer Concrete Using Regression
Analysis. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 2022, 4528264. [CrossRef]
48. Motulsky, H.J.; Ransnas, L.A. Fitting curves to data using nonlinear regression: A practical and nonmathematical review. FASEB J.
1987, 1, 365–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

View publication stats